Israeli

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

I'm sure there will come a time when Israel pretends that Settlements are necessary because some bloke in Finsbury Park hasn't accepted Isreal's inalienable right to exist.

The official Israeli line is 'biblical' reasons - it's the year 2016 and people are losing their land and homes because of the Bible. Total madness.

[don4l]

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

Countdown and other of his ilk will be along to propose that the "interpretation" of said documents are flawed. As if the world has deciphered Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs but can't quite master Levantine Arabic.

I'm guessing it was too much for you to read the 3rd paragraph then..... Still, well done on avoiding the question on Settlements again.

The third paragraph seems to suggest that not all of the Jews need to be slaughtered if they leave the area.

third paragraph said:

In 2008, the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel.[7] In contrast to this, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar stated that any talk of the 1967 lines is "just a phase" until Hamas has a chance to "regain the land...even if we [Hamas] have to do so inch by inch."[8] Other Hamas leaders, including Ismail Haniyah and Khaled Meshaal have also stated repeatedly that "Palestine – from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, from its north to its south – is our land, our right, and our homeland. There will be no relinquishing or forsaking even an inch or small part of it,"[9] and that "we shall not relinquish the Islamic waqf on the land of Palestine, and Jerusalem shall not be divided into Western and Eastern Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a single united [city], and Palestine stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, and from Naqoura [Rosh Ha-Niqra] to Umm Al-Rashrash [Eilat] in the south."[10][11]

[Countdown]

Wiki said:

In 2010 Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons."[14] Hamas has moved away from its charter since it decided to run candidates for office.[13]

[anonymous-user]

I'd argue the most pertinent line is:

"In 2008, the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel"

The UN also officially recognises 1967 borders but not subsequent Israeli settlements.

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

Countdown and other of his ilk will be along to propose that the "interpretation" of said documents are flawed. As if the world has deciphered Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs but can't quite master Levantine Arabic.

I'm guessing it was too much for you to read the 3rd paragraph then..... Still, well done on avoiding the question on Settlements again.

That second paragraph renders settlement discussion academic. The third paragraph, basically shows that the majority of leaders feel the same with the odd holdout. Again, when one's charter calls for a nations dissolution, all other us arguments are irrelevant.

[Jimbeaux]

RaymondVanDerDon said:

Jimbeaux said:

When one decrees that another's total destruction is one's goal, is it not an irrelevant exercise for one to measure the displeasure caused by a new neighborhood filing??? Please.

Israeli Settlement Policy commenced in 1967. Hamas Covenant issued in 1988.

Please just give a straight answer on your view of settlements - there was a recent UN resolution on it so it seems pretty relevant to the rest of the world.

No, I do not deem building a neighborhood as reason to start a war nor to make a charter calling for national dissolution a sensible response to said neighborhoods being built.
Let me ask you a question; would the five Arab nations not attacking Israel to begin with, losing the war and territory, not have been a better course of action? Then all questions of settlements would never have happened. Those nations, armed with Soviet weaponry were sure they would win and had no answer when they were beaten. They seem to be having a similar reaction to the Clinton campaign.

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

Wiki said:

In 2010 Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons."[14] Hamas has moved away from its charter since it decided to run candidates for office.[13]

"But can't be changed for internal reasons"? That was a weak and stupid remark on their part, as well as totally unbelievable.

[Jimbeaux]

RaymondVanDerDon said:

I'd argue the most pertinent line is:

"In 2008, the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel"

The UN also officially recognises 1967 borders but not subsequent Israeli settlements.

I refer you to the sentence immediately following your quote that has the more senior leader referring to said truce as a "phase" on the way to the dissolution the charter refers to in the first place. No dice.

[babatunde]

I've a question for the pro settlement people here.

How do you think the question of where the Palestinian people (or whatever you choose to call them) should be resolved, as in where should they live and call home?


P.S
Anyone quoting religious rubbish shall be ignored as a person who can't think like a rational human being.

Edited by babatunde on Monday 26th December 05:20

[Captain Cadillac]

Countdown said:

Do you think Bibi's govt is serious about wanting a genuine peace with the Palestinisns?

Yup. Bibis government absolutely wants peace, my family in Israel wants peace, the huge Israeli expat community here in north jersey wants peace along with everyone that I've ever met in Israel. Guess what, despite the brainwashing by their government so do most Palestinians.

But the difference is that the Israelis are pretty much convinced that the PA doesn't want peace. And I'd say that they're right.

If peace happened overnight, how on earth could Hamas or, for that matter, pretty much any Palestinian government agency's existence be justified anymore?

To the Israelis, this would be a massive victory; permanent and lasting peace with the Palestinians would transform life in Israel as well as in the West Bank and Gaza. To the PA the st would hit the fan.

[Captain Cadillac]

eddharris said:

Really not wanting to carry this internet machismo on but I can assure you I absolutely fking would if I wanted to.
We'll probably never find out.

I'm going to now back out of this thread before you krav maga roundhouse me, yee fking ha.

Edited by eddharris on Sunday 25th December 22:08

Let me know the next time you're in New York City.

[jakesmith]

Hard to see how the middle east is in such a seemingly irretrievable state of conflict, when people unaffected by it can't even discuss it without resorting to threats of violence

[Biker 1]

babatunde said:

I've a question for the pro settlement people here.

How do you think the question of where the Palestinian people (or whatever you choose to call them) should be resolved, as in where should they live and call home?

I'm not pro-settlement, but would suggest that many don't understand where settlements are located, which are really contentious, & so on.
Many of them are situated in places where there was nothing but barren land, or rocky mountain outcrops. Some were undoubtedly built for political/religious reasons, specifically to isolate some Arab villages, thus splitting the territories; what one does about these in any final deal is highly debatable.
The majority of settlements were built very close to the 'Green Line' & have little or no bearing on anybody else's community. The 'palestinians' either already live in viable communities, or in refugee camps in neighbouring countries, where (as pointed out in someone else's post) they have never been offered local citizenship or integration. This is the crux of the problem: if an independent state comes into being, will these millions of historic refugees be allowed to move in? I don't believe there are the resources, either in the territories, or indeed in Israel 'proper'.
This problem is not going to be resolved any time soon. Meanwhile, it seems many of the Druze population on the Golan Heights are swapping their Syrian citizenship for Israeli passports. Who'd of thought....

[audidoody]

RaymondVanDerDon said:

I'd argue the most pertinent line is:

"In 2008, the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel"

The UN also officially recognises 1967 borders but not subsequent Israeli settlements.

Do you mean the pre-Six Day War border? Because that would require Israel relinquishing Jerusalem. About as likely as Manhattan being returned to the Indians.

Edited by audidoody on Monday 26th December 10:38

[audidoody]

RaymondVanDerDon said:

I'd argue the most pertinent line is:

"In 2008, the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel"

The UN also officially recognises 1967 borders but not subsequent Israeli settlements.

Do you mean the pre-Six Day War border? Because that would require Israel relinquishing Jerusalem. About as likely as Manhattan being returned to the Indians.

Edited by audidoody on Monday 26th December 12:07

[Slaav]

Jimbeaux said:

RaymondVanDerDon said:

Jimbeaux said:

I was not speaking of that. When he is POTUS, then we can critique his performance.

I have a question for you - why have you not raised the issue of settlements in any of your prior posts? Your main argument appears to be that the middle east is full of terrorists that want to attack Israel for no reason.

Do you really think people would risk their lives because they just don't like a Jewish state - or could it be they are retaliating to losing their homes and loved ones - as a consequence of the Israeli settlement Policy?

Again, it would be really interesting to get your views on the Settlement Policy which has increased year on year since 1967 and whether you concede this has been one of the primary drivers for the formation of militant groups like Hamas.

I invite you to read Hamas' covenant below. Pay particular attention to the second paragraph.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant

You will note that the only thing that will suffice in their view is the dissolution of Israel. The mere to and fro of a neighborhood being built is not even in the same ballpark.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 26th December 00:41

Thanks for the link. I particularly noticed this bit:

"In 2009 interviews with the BBC, Tony Blair claimed that Hamas does not accept the existence of Israel and continues to pursue its objectives through terror and violence; Sir Jeremy Greenstock however argued that Hamas has not adopted its charter as part of its political program since it won the Palestinian legislative election, 2006.[12] Instead it has moved to a more secular stance.[13]
In 2010 Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons."[14] Hamas has moved away from its charter since it decided to run candidates for office.[13]"

Or is only the second para of interest?

[Transmitter Man]

Biker 1 said:

I'm not pro-settlement, but would suggest that many don't understand where settlements are located, which are really contentious, & so on.
Many of them are situated in places where there was nothing but barren land, or rocky mountain outcrops. Some were undoubtedly built for political/religious reasons, specifically to isolate some Arab villages, thus splitting the territories; what one does about these in any final deal is highly debatable.
The majority of settlements were built very close to the 'Green Line' & have little or no bearing on anybody else's community. The 'palestinians' either already live in viable communities, or in refugee camps in neighbouring countries, where (as pointed out in someone else's post) they have never been offered local citizenship or integration. This is the crux of the problem: if an independent state comes into being, will these millions of historic refugees be allowed to move in? I don't believe there are the resources, either in the territories, or indeed in Israel 'proper'.
This problem is not going to be resolved any time soon. Meanwhile, it seems many of the Druze population on the Golan Heights are swapping their Syrian citizenship for Israeli passports. Who'd of thought....

Afaik there are a lot more Pal's now than existed in 67/73.

Also 're the three Druze villages in the Israeli Golan, they were given the option way back to take Israeli or keep their Syrian citizenship. It's accepted also that in the early days of the Syrian conflict most of these Druze sided with Assad. Their view has now most definitely changed.

I agree with much of what's been said 're Iran and their proxies. They are by far the biggest threat to ME stability. Obama was the biggest ashore in modern US history lifting most sanctions and releasing their frozen bank assets. Did he think those billions would be spent on benefiting the Iranian people?

'Internal' opposition to the village's regime is far greater than what most people image. (Family members left in 79).

I have learnt in my 60 years of living on this planet that people who criticize Israel, Sauidi, Qatar Tec tend to have never been to these countries let alone lived or worked there. Btw, it takes a multiple offender who did not learn their lesson the first few times before the courts consider chopping your hand off. Plus, petrol is 5c a litre while water is 17c. Zero tax. Free education for any citizen studying abroad including monthly allowance and private not state medical and dental care. Send your invoice to the Saudi Embassy in London's Curzon St. Oh, and another thing. when was the last time a gulf Arab or Israeli travelled to the UK to sponge off the NHS when the wife was pregnant?

're Israeli settlements. Some are illegally built and some of those are forced down by the courts. Many are as stated built legally on Israeli land.
I've smoked a Shasta in Jerusalem's Arab quarters with an old Arab and an old Jew at the same table. Everyone gets on like brothers. It's mostly the brainwashed idiots that go round stabbing innocents. And yes, there are Israeli idiots as well and they mostly carry guns.

Phil

[HughiusMaximus]

Captain Cadillac said:

Yup. Bibis government absolutely wants peace, my family in Israel wants peace, the huge Israeli expat community here in north jersey wants peace along with everyone that I've ever met in Israel. Guess what, despite the brainwashing by their government so do most Palestinians.

But the difference is that the Israelis are pretty much convinced that the PA doesn't want peace. And I'd say that they're right.

If peace happened overnight, how on earth could Hamas or, for that matter, pretty much any Palestinian government agency's existence be justified anymore?

To the Israelis, this would be a massive victory; permanent and lasting peace with the Palestinians would transform life in Israel as well as in the West Bank and Gaza. To the PA the st would hit the fan.

I imagine similar to Sinn Fein in northern Ireland post conflict...

Morphing into a more mainstream party?

[Jimbeaux]

babatunde said:

I've a question for the pro settlement people here.

How do you think the question of where the Palestinian people (or whatever you choose to call them) should be resolved, as in where should they live and call home?


P.S
Anyone quoting religious rubbish shall be ignored as a person who can't think like a rational human being.

Edited by babatunde on Monday 26th December 05:20

The five surrounding brother nations, that claim to care dearly, could easily take in the population among themselves. They won't because they are useful being kept crammed in that small area; they continue to be the excuse needed to teach hate in schools and homes to a new generation.

[Jimbeaux]

Biker 1 said:

babatunde said:

I've a question for the pro settlement people here.

How do you think the question of where the Palestinian people (or whatever you choose to call them) should be resolved, as in where should they live and call home?

I'm not pro-settlement, but would suggest that many don't understand where settlements are located, which are really contentious, & so on.
Many of them are situated in places where there was nothing but barren land, or rocky mountain outcrops. Some were undoubtedly built for political/religious reasons, specifically to isolate some Arab villages, thus splitting the territories; what one does about these in any final deal is highly debatable.
The majority of settlements were built very close to the 'Green Line' & have little or no bearing on anybody else's community. The 'palestinians' either already live in viable communities, or in refugee camps in neighbouring countries, where (as pointed out in someone else's post) they have never been offered local citizenship or integration. This is the crux of the problem: if an independent state comes into being, will these millions of historic refugees be allowed to move in? I don't believe there are the resources, either in the territories, or indeed in Israel 'proper'.
This problem is not going to be resolved any time soon. Meanwhile, it seems many of the Druze population on the Golan Heights are swapping their Syrian citizenship for Israeli passports. Who'd of thought....

Good post. Thanks.